Revised 2-26-08 Council on Postsecondary Education February 26, 2008 Doctorates in Educational Leadership Eastern Kentucky University Northern Kentucky University Western Kentucky University ACTION: The staff recommends the approval of the proposals from Eastern Kentucky University, Northern Kentucky University, and Western Kentucky University to offer an Ed.D. in Educational Leadership contingent upon the following: (1) The submission of a report to the Council by October 1, 2008, outlining the details of the seamless transfer articulation agreements among the universities as referenced in the Collaborative Efforts in Offering the Ed.D. in Educational Leadership Memorandum of Understanding included in the proposals (Attachment A). This report will be considered for acceptance by the Council at its November 2008 meeting. (2) Successful annual reviews of progress conducted by the external review committee that show commitment to meeting the recommendations included in the review committee s executive summary (Attachment B), and in the review committee s evaluations of each individual proposal (Attachments C-E). In addition, a full review at the end of three years will be conducted of all public university Ed.D. programs to ensure the viability, sustainability, and effectiveness of the programs. (3) Evidence in the annual reviews that each program is on track to be financially self-sufficient by the time it is fully implemented. EKU indicates its program will be fully implemented by year five. NKU indicates self-sufficiency by year three. WKU indicates that its program will be fully implemented by year five. (4) The Council directs each institution granting an Ed.D. to collect and to report annually to the Council staff information on the placement of all its graduates. The Council also directs each institution awarding an Ed.D. to evaluate whether these educational leaders have helped to improve student achievement in Kentucky. Finally, the Council directs the Council staff to incorporate information from these institutional reports in reports to the Council (e.g., the High School Feedback Report) and to the legislature (e.g., the annual accountability report).
Revised 2-26-08 In an opinion dated July 30, 1991, the Kentucky Attorney General s Office stated that KRS 164.295 permits the comprehensive universities to offer advanced degrees beyond the master s degree only in education and only with the Council s approval. In early 2007, the comprehensive universities began exploring the possibility of offering doctoral degrees in educational leadership to meet the need of the P-12 districts in their areas. On July 16, 2007, the Council approved a set of comprehensive and rigorous criteria for the review of proposals for doctoral degrees in educational leadership at Kentucky s comprehensive universities (see Review of Ed.D. Proposals and Programs, July 16, 2007, Attachment F). These criteria were the culmination of two years of reflection and study on how the comprehensive universities could expand their offerings in the area of educational leadership to have a positive impact on P-12 student achievement and the economy in their regions (see Review of Ed.D. Proposals and Programs Timeline, Attachment G). As directed in that action, the Council staff formed an external review committee (see Review of Ed.D. Proposals and Programs Process Update, February 1, 2008, Attachment H) to evaluate the proposals in three areas: program design, program content, and capacity. The review committee conducted interviews with representatives from each campus and found that all of the proposed programs stress regional stewardship and focus on improving student achievement and the economy in their areas of geographic responsibility. They are all focused on the long-term strengthening of the workforce through improvements in the educational system at all levels. The initial resources invested in these programs are investments in the future of the regions. In particular, EKU plans to focus on rural leadership issues; NKU emphasizes the role of the Ed.D. in the implementation of its regional strategic plan, Vision 2015; and WKU focuses on the university taking greater responsibility for P-12 student achievement in its region. The review committee indicated that all three programs show great promise for the future of programs in educational leadership in Kentucky. The proposed programs embrace new and nontraditional ways of preparing instructional leaders and are aligned with the work of the Education Professional Standards Board s Education Leadership Redesign Task Force created by the 2006 General Assembly in House Joint Resolution 14 (Attachment I). The task force s full report can be accessed at http://www.kyepsb.net/documents/execoffice/elrreport.pdf. Along with the recommendations above that apply to each proposed program, the review committee made several recommendations specific to each institution. Those items can be found in the attached evaluations but the most important recommendations include the following:
Revised 2-26-08 Eastern Kentucky University Improving the selection process for candidates to include input from practitioners. A clearer delineation of how the master s program differs from the proposed doctoral program. Formal agreements between the institution and its partner school districts. Northern Kentucky University Course content needs to be more fully developed in order to make more specific determinations regarding the alignment of the content to the principles of the program. Explicit information needs to be included regarding nontraditional assessment of the candidates. Western Kentucky University Course content needs to be more fully developed in order to make more specific determinations regarding the alignment of the content to the principles of the program. Explicit information needs to be included regarding nontraditional assessment of the candidates. These items must be addressed as part of the annual reviews conducted per the contingent approval of the programs. In addition, at the conclusion of the three-year review, the Council may ask the institutions to provide an assessment of the impact of their new graduates on the performance of the schools in which they serve. The intensive and rigorous process has resulted in three proposed programs that address the needs of the proposing institutions respective regions, as well as the needs of Kentucky as a whole. While the programs will be expected to show progress in transferability and sustainability, the institutions have made a diligent and committed effort to address the issues of concern expressed by the Council throughout the process. The institutions have indicated that given the priority they have placed on these programs they can, even in the current difficult financial climate, reallocate funds to support the launch of the programs. Working together, the Council and the institutions have created programs that will benefit the Commonwealth. Staff preparation by Jim Applegate and John DeAtley
Attachment A
Attachment B Executive Summary The need for opportunities to access terminal educational leadership degrees in all geographical regions of Kentucky has been confirmed by multiple data sources collected by state a task force and the three universities proposing new programs. The proposal submitted by Eastern Kentucky University stresses that to better serve its region, the doctoral program should focus on rural leadership issues. Northern Kentucky University s proposal emphasizes the implementation of the regional strategic plan Vision 2015. This plan stresses that improved education is an essential element for the economic development of the region. Western Kentucky University s proposal addresses local student achievement and how the university should take more responsibility for both university achievement and P-12 student achievement. All three doctoral program proposals stress regional stewardship and the need to have a positive impact on student achievement and the economy in their regions. All the proposals emphasize the need for a stronger workforce to enhance the future economy and also stress that this can only be attained through an improved educational system that offers greater access to education at all levels. The resources that will be used to develop these programs are an investment for the future. The three proposals show great promise for the future of doctoral programs in Kentucky. They are unique in many ways and embrace new and non-traditional ideas about how to prepare instructional leaders at the doctoral level. The review committee report on each proposal contains commendations, suggestions and recommendations for each university. It is hoped that the suggestions given will be considered as each university moves forward with the implementation of their plans. It is expected that recommendations will be addressed before any program approval is given. Recommendations are as follows: Eastern Kentucky University The selection process does not include input from practitioners nor reflect the recommendations of HB resolution 14. Add practitioners to the selection process, especially the interview, and dissertation review process. There is not a clear understanding of how the doctoral program is different from the master s program in educational leadership. Create a document that clearly shows the difference. There is a need for formal memorandums of agreement with school districts, and especially with partner universities.
Northern Kentucky University The program outcomes are well stated but there are no course syllabi to indicate in which courses the outcomes will be taught. Proposal statements all embrace the requirements for program content but there are only placeholder syllabi to determine if any of the program content requirements are in place. Course syllabi should be developed not only to determine content taught but also to demonstrate how the described competency-based approach and non-traditional assessments will be used. Western Kentucky University The program outcomes are well stated but there are no course syllabi to indicate in which courses the outcomes will be taught. Proposal statements all embrace the requirements for program content but there are only placeholder syllabi to determine if any of the program content requirements are in place. Course syllabi should be developed not only to determine content taught but also to demonstrate how the described competency-based approach and non-traditional assessments will be used. All three plans are well-written but implementation is always the most difficult phase in any new intervention. Therefore, the review team recommends that the Council consider developing a plan for follow-up sessions over the next three years to monitor and support implementation of the proposals. The review team also is concerned about funding and sustainability for three new doctoral programs in this time of possible budget cuts. It is recommended that to better use scarce resources, the Council encourages the universities to collaborate to provide students seamless transferability and greater access to all available programs.
Attachment C Review of Ed.D. Proposals and Programs Evaluation Form Institution: Eastern Kentucky University Degree Title: Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Educational Leadership Program Design Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Satisfactory Exceeds Expectations Rigorous and relevant prerequisites for admission. Process does not include input from practitioners or reflect the recommendations for HB resolution 14. Seamless transfer options for students, allowing them to take courses from any approved program and have them count toward the degree. Cohort or open model of registration, including minimum requirements for viability of program. Eastern Kentucky University Seek articulation stated, but a policy in place would make this clearer. Adequate, but not unusual or unique. More group or team work might be considered. A detailed program of study. Program is well designed but lacks some uniqueness for a new program. Description of culminating experience or dissertation appropriate to the needs of the constituencies served. Demonstration of a fully aligned relationship between Alignment between Good ideas for action research and solving problems. Different from traditional dissertation work.
the redesigned master s and doctoral programs. Program tracks that acknowledge the diversity of applicants background experiences and prior knowledge. Articulated agreements with local school districts, cooperatives and other regional partners that ensure substantive field experience. Comments Regarding Program Design doctorate and masters not clearly defined, but the program does track applicants experiences and prior knowledge. No formal agreements with school districts for field experiences. No MOA s, but planning to secure agreements with other universities for transferability of courses. Selection process does not include input from practitioners or reflect the recommendations for HB resolution 14. Very good focus on rural educational leadership needs and on creating a grow your own situation. Program design detailed, but the university should ensure ongoing input from the practitioner. Good ideas for action and applied research. Program Content Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Satisfactory Exceeds Expectations Be interdisciplinary and collaborative across institutions and agencies, calling on a wide variety of resources. Have rigorous curriculum standards, with identified competencies, and cohort-based instructional methods that motivate and engage students with a focus on dynamic instructional leadership, all with a flexible schedule to accommodate working professionals. Blend theoretical and research knowledge with applied analytical skills (research knowledge should be used to. Good community involvement, but could take advantage of all the resources the university has and work with other colleges and schools more.. Statements all embrace the requirements for program content, and course syllabi are in place, but more detail about field experiences beyond when appropriate is needed.. Stated but needs to be more specific in the
Attachment C improve school practice). Focus on data-based decision making, the efficient use of technology for management and instruction, and the establishment of virtual learning communities. Help leaders work collaboratively and inclusively with teachers, parents, students, and the community to create productive learning environments. descriptions used. Technology use has more to do with accessibility than instruction. More emphasis on instructional use needed. Collaboration mentioned with these audiences during interviews. Comments Regarding Program Content Statements all embrace the requirements for program content and course syllabi are in place but more detail about field experiences beyond when appropriate is needed. Capacity Faculty Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Satisfactory Exceeds Expectations Appropriate qualifications of present and pending faculty, including rank, degrees, experience and relevant scholarship. Faculty and terminal degrees are included, but university needs to ensure that they can staff the program appropriately after potential budget cuts. Appropriate balance between full- and part-time faculty in the program, ensuring quality and consistency for the students. Description of the support and resources that will be provided to aid in the inculcation of a doctoral education Good information given during interview. Library resources are described. Good Eastern Kentucky University
culture within the department and institution and the preparation of faculty to chair student committees. administrative support articulated during interview Comments Regarding Capacity Faculty There are concerns that the university may have difficulty in staffing program appropriately with potential budget cuts. Library resources are described. Good administrative support articulated during interview. The creation of the Center for Educational Research in Appalachia is a plus. Capacity Resources Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Satisfactory Exceeds Expectations Demonstration of financial viability: Total costs for students, including options for student financing. Costs have been analyzed. Demonstration of financial viability: Start-up costs. Start up costs have been explained. Demonstration of financial viability: Financial impact on institution. Demonstration of financial viability: Minimum number of students required to make program viable, accounting for attrition. Administration provided information about sustainability over time and strong commitment of resources. Numbers of students expected and attrition have been accounted for. Evidence of sufficient graduate student support, including availability of external funding. More information might be needed about external funding needs. Comments Regarding Capacity Resources During interviews it was stated that administration will do whatever it takes to make this a program a success. They should be commended for this strong commitment of resources to the program.
Attachment C Summary Questions Has the institution documented a strong need for the program? During interviews and in the written document the team stated that the need is to improve K-12 student achievement in their service area. The institution will have a unique focus that is crucial to education. The university is most appropriate to provide the educational opportunity becaseu of location and accessibility. Has the institution demonstrated adequate commitment of personnel and fiscal resources to implement a successful program? During interviews it was stated that administration will do whatever it takes to make this a program a success. They should be commended for this strong commitment of resources to the program. The additional faculties that will be needed are being recruited and should be in place at the start of the program. Has the institution sought and integrated adequate collaboration? They have collaborated with other universities but not with school districts, practitioners or other colleges and schools within their university. During the interviews they agreed to have more practitioner involvement, and they should be commended. They are securing articulated agreements with other institutions. Eastern Kentucky University Overall Impressions, Suggestions for Improvements, and Recommendations Commendations: The university should be commended for: The commitment to develop a doctoral program that will better prepare educational leaders to lead in rural schools. Very good focus on rural educational leadership needs and creating a grow your own situation The strong commitment and assurances that resources will be made available to ensure that this program is successful Ideas for action and applied research Administrative support articulated during interview. During interviews it was stated that administration will do whatever it takes to make this a program a success. They should be commended for this strong commitment of resources to the program The creation of the Center for Educational Research in Appalachia Suggestions: It is suggested that the university consider the following points: Seamless transfer would be clearer if stated in a policy that goes beyond seeking articulation.
More group or team work might be considered with the cohort model. There is good community involvement, but program could take advantage of all university resources and work more with other colleges and schools. Technology use needs to be instructional in nature. More input from the practitioner on program of study is needed. Statements all embrace the requirements for program content, and course syllabi are in place, but more detail is needed about field experiences beyond when appropriate and mentoring responsibilities and commitment. There are concerns that the university may have difficulty to staff program appropriately with potential budget cuts. Program design is detailed, but the university should ensure ongoing input from the practitioner. Recommendation: The selection process does not include input from practitioners nor reflect the recommendations of HB resolution 14. Add practitioners to the selection process, especially the interview, and dissertation review process. There is not a clear understanding of how the doctoral program is different from the master s program in educational leadership. Create a document that clearly shows the difference. There is a need for formal memorandums of agreement with school districts, and especially with partner universities.
Attachment D Review of Ed.D. Proposals and Programs Evaluation Form Institution: Northern Kentucky University Degree Title: Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Educational Leadership Program Design Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Satisfactory Exceeds Expectations Rigorous and relevant prerequisites for admission.. Process does reflect recommendations from HB resolution 14. Includes an interview with NKU faculty and the P-12 partners, but rubrics for measurement not Seamless transfer options for students, allowing them to take courses from any approved program and have them count toward the degree. Cohort or open model of registration, including minimum requirements for viability of program. available. Seamless transfer addressed. No policy was described, although a MOA is in place with another university. Explained but not unusual or unique. A detailed program of study. Good outline for program of study and there are sample syllabi, but more detail needed. Description of culminating experience or dissertation appropriate to the needs of the constituencies served. Northern Kentucky University Two Capstone projects: group based and action research dissertation.
Demonstration of a fully aligned relationship between the redesigned master s and doctoral programs. Program tracks that acknowledge the diversity of applicants background experiences and prior knowledge. Articulated agreements with local school districts, cooperatives, and other regional partners that ensure substantive field experience. Masters and relationship to doctorate described in a satisfactory way.. Articulated agreement for transferability of courses. Articulated agreements with school districts for field experiences, etc. are referred to, but no MOAs included, nor KCTCS partnership Information. Attachment D Dissertation can be action research that occurs throughout the candidate s program Comments Regarding Program Design Needs more detail and input from the practitioner. Good information on teacher leader, P-12 administrator and higher education administrator. Two Capstone projects: group based and action research dissertation. Dissertation can be action research that occurs throughout the candidate s program Program Content Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Satisfactory Exceeds Expectations Be interdisciplinary and collaborative across institutions and agencies, calling on a wide variety of resources. Have rigorous curriculum standards, with identified competencies, and cohort-based instructional methods that motivate and engage students with a focus on dynamic instructional leadership, all with a flexible schedule to accommodate working professionals. Northern Kentucky University. Good use of possible multiple resources outside of the COE described in interview Outcomes well stated, but where they will be taught is not clear. Statements all embrace the requirements for program content, but
Attachment D there are only placeholder syllabi to determine if program content requirements are in place. Also inclusion of nontraditional assessments for a competency-based program. Blend theoretical and research knowledge with applied analytical skills (research knowledge should be used to improve school practice). Focus on data-based decision making, the efficient use of technology for management and instruction, and the establishment of virtual learning communities.. Blend is present, but descriptions could be more specific Documented section Appendix C Help leaders work collaboratively and inclusively with teachers, parents, students, and the community to create productive learning environments. Comments Regarding Program Content Collaboration mentioned with these audiences and to be mastered during field experiences. Statements all embrace the requirements for program content, but there are no course syllabi or samples of what will be offered to candidates to determine if any of the program content requirements are in place. Good use of possible multiple resources outside of the COE described in interview. Capacity Faculty Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Satisfactory Exceeds Expectations Appropriate qualifications of present and pending faculty, including rank, degrees, experience, and relevant scholarship. Appendix D lists information on fulltime and part-time faculty, but some lack descriptions of qualifications and experience. Appropriate balance between full- and part-time faculty Loads and duties Northern Kentucky University
Attachment D in the program, ensuring quality and consistency for the students. described pages 21 23 Description of the support and resources that will be provided to aid in the inculcation of a doctoral education culture within the department and institution and the preparation of faculty to chair student committees. Resources described pages 24 31, but sustainability could be a problem. Comments Regarding Capacity Faculty Since courses are listed but only placeholder syllabi available, it is difficult to determine if faculties of record have expertise required to teach the course. Sistainability of program could be a problem. Capacity--Resources Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Satisfactory Exceeds Expectations Demonstration of financial viability: Total costs for students, including options for student financing. Costs have been analyzed. Demonstration of financial viability: Start-up costs. Demonstration of financial viability: Financial impact on institution. Demonstration of financial viability: Minimum number of students required to make program viable, accounting for attrition. Evidence of sufficient graduate student support, including availability of external funding. Start-up costs have been explained. More information needed about sustainability over time. Numbers of students expected and attrition have been accounted for. Evidence of graduate student support present, but more information needed about availability of external funding and sustainability over time. Northern Kentucky University
Attachment D Comments Regarding Capacity--Resources Although there has been work done to calculate resources needed, sustainability of the program needs to be studied in more detail. Although it was stated several times during the interview that there is administrative support for this program, there are concerns about sustainability with budget cuts. Additional planning for that event should be considered. Has the institution documented a strong need for the program? Summary Questions The need for better student achievement in their service area was discussed in the beginning of the proposal and supported with some good research. Survey results indicated a need for area professionals having access to terminal degrees.. Information shared about 2015 Vision during interview showed more regional stewardship on the part of the University. They are to be commended for this. Has the institution demonstrated adequate commitment of personnel and fiscal resources to implement a successful program? There is commitment, but again, sustainability is not clear. Has the institution sought and integrated adequate collaboration? They have collaborated with other universities and refer to collaboration with school districts, practitioners or other colleges and schools in their university but only a MOA with a university is part of the proposal. Overall Impressions, Suggestions for Improvements, and Recommendations Commendations The university should be commended for: Information shared about 2015 Vision during interview showed more regional stewardship on the part of the University. They are to be commended for this. Good use of disposition rubric during selection process. Two Capstone projects: group based and action research dissertation. Dissertation can be action research that occurs throughout the candidate s program. Good use of possible multiple resources outside of the COE described in interview Good information on teacher leader, P-12 administrator and higher education administrator Suggestions It is suggested the university consider the following points: KCTCS partnership should be in place. Northern Kentucky University
Attachment D Although it was stated several times during the interview that there is administrative support for this program, there are concerns about sustainability with budget cuts. Additional planning for that event should be considered. Appendix D lists information on full-time and part-time faculty, but some lack descriptions of qualifications and experience. More information is needed. Mentoring needs clarification on responsibilities and commitment. Recommendations Before approval is given the university should: The program outcomes are well stated but there are no course syllabi to indicate in which courses the outcomes will be taught. Proposal statements all embrace the requirements for program content but there are only placeholder syllabi to determine if any of the program content requirements are in place. Course syllabi should be developed not only to determine content taught but also to demonstrate how the described competency-based approach and nontraditional assessments will be used. Northern Kentucky University
Attachment E Review of Ed.D. Proposals and Programs Evaluation Form Institution: Western Kentucky University Degree Title: Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Educational Leadership_ Program Design Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Satisfactory Exceeds Expectations Rigorous and relevant prerequisites for admission. Process does not include input from practitioners but reflects some recommendations from HB resolution 14. No rubrics for measurement have been Seamless transfer options for students, allowing them to take courses from any approved program and have them count toward the degree. Cohort or open model of registration, including minimum requirements for viability of program. Western Kentucky University developed. Seamless transfer addressed and MOA is in place with another university. Procedures not well-described. Explained but not unusual or unique although the proposed design might offer students the possibility of individualization. A detailed program of study. Schematic in proposal and diagram shared at interviews shows a well-planned process. Description of culminating experience or dissertation appropriate to the needs of the constituencies served. Dissertation will be applied research, focusing on real-world problems
Demonstration of a fully aligned relationship between the redesigned master s and doctoral programs. Program tracks that acknowledge the diversity of applicants background experiences and prior knowledge. Articulated agreements with local school districts, cooperatives, and other regional partners that ensure substantive field experience. Comments Regarding Program Design Describes the masters in a satisfactory way and relationship to doctorate.. Appendix A describes collaboration with districts. Articulated agreements for transferability of courses and with school districts for field experiences etc. are referred to, but only university MOA included. Attachment E related to the candidate s workplace. Dissertation based on real world problems and action research. Non-traditional approach. Program Content Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Satisfactory Exceeds Expectations Be interdisciplinary and collaborative across institutions and agencies, calling on a wide variety of resources. Have rigorous curriculum standards, with identified competencies, and cohort-based instructional methods that motivate and engage students with a focus on dynamic instructional leadership, all with a flexible schedule to accommodate working professionals. Western Kentucky University Outcomes well stated, but what students will be taught is not clear. Statements all embrace the requirements for program content, but there are no course syllabi of what will be offered to candidates to determine if any of the Taking full advantage of all university resources such as business school, urban planning, public administration, etc.
program content requirements are in place. Attachment E Blend theoretical and research knowledge with applied analytical skills (research knowledge should be used to improve school practice). Focus on data-based decision making, the efficient use of technology for management and instruction, and the establishment of virtual learning communities. Help leaders work collaboratively and inclusively with teachers, parents, students, and the community to create productive learning environments.. Stated but descriptions could be more specific. Documented but descriptions could be more specific. Collaboration described and discussed with these audiences. Comments Regarding Program Content Statements all embrace the requirements for program content but there are no complete course syllabi of what will be offered to candidates to determine if all of the program content requirements are in place. Capacity Faculty Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Satisfactory Exceeds Expectations Appropriate qualifications of present and pending faculty, including rank, degrees, experience, and relevant scholarship. Information given on present full-time and parttime faculty, but the concept of pulling from the university and community for additional faculty widens the pool. Appropriate balance between full- and part-time faculty in the program, ensuring quality and consistency for the students. Description of the support and resources that will be Resources described, Western Kentucky University Loads and duties described, but the concept of pulling from the university and community for additional faculty widens the pool.
provided to aid in the inculcation of a doctoral education culture within the department and institution and the preparation of faculty to chair student committees. but sustainability might be a problem. Attachment E Comments Regarding Capacity Faculty Since courses are listed but no syllabi available it is difficult to determine if faculty of record has the expertise required to teach the course. Taking full advantage of all university resources such as business school, urban planning, public administration, etc. Capacity--Resources Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Satisfactory Exceeds Expectations Demonstration of financial viability: Total costs for students, including options for student financing. Costs have been analyzed. Demonstration of financial viability: Start-up costs. Start-up costs have been explained. Demonstration of financial viability: Financial impact on institution. Demonstration of financial viability: Minimum number of students required to make program viable, accounting for attrition. Evidence of sufficient graduate student support, including availability of external funding.. More information might be needed about sustainability over time Numbers of students expected and attrition have been accounted for.. More information might be needed about sustainability over time Comments Regarding Capacity--Resources Although there has been work done to calculate resources needed, sustainability of the program needs to be studied in more detail. Although it was stated several times during the interview that there was administrative support fr the program, there are concerns about sustainability with budget cuts. Additional planning should be considered. Western Kentucky University
Attachment E Has the institution documented a strong need for the program? Summary Questions The need for better student achievement in their service area was discussed in the beginning of the proposal and supported with some good research. Information shared during interview showed more regional stewardship on the part of the University. They are to be commended for this. Has the institution demonstrated adequate commitment of personnel and fiscal resources to implement a successful program? There is commitment but sustainability is not clear. Has the institution sought and integrated adequate collaboration? They have collaborated with other universities and refer to collaboration with school districts, practitioners or other colleges and schools in their university. but only a MOA with a university is part of the proposal. Overall Impressions, Suggestions for Improvements, and Recommendations Commendations: The university should be commended for: The need for better student achievement in their service area was discussed in the beginning of the proposal and supported with some good research. Information shared during interview showed more regional stewardship on the part of the University. They are to be commended for this. Group based and action research dissertation. Dissertation can be action research that occurs throughout the candidate s program. Good use of possible multiple resources outside of the COE described in interview Suggestions It is suggested the university consider the following points: KCTCS partnership should be in place. Although it was stated several times during the interview that there is administrative support for this program, there are concerns about sustainability with budget cuts. Additional planning for that event should be considered. Mentoring needs clarification on responsibilities and commitment. Recommendations The program outcomes are well stated but there are no course syllabi to indicate in which courses the outcomes will be taught. Proposal statements all embrace the requirements for program content but there are only placeholder syllabi to determine if any of the program content requirements are in place. Course syllabi should be developed not only to determine content taught but also to demonstrate how the described competency-based approach and nontraditional assessments will be used. Western Kentucky University
Attachment F Council on Postsecondary Education Quality and Accountability Policy Group July 16, 2007 Review of Ed.D. Proposals and Programs ACTION: The staff recommends that proposals to create new Ed.D. programs or initiatives to redesign current doctoral programs at the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville be reviewed pursuant to the criteria and process described below. Background Ed.D. programs have been the subject of numerous criticisms in recent years. They have been described as Ph.D.-lite, as severely lacking, and as inappropriate to the needs of today s schools and school leaders. It is widely believed that a new form of educational leadership training is required to meet the challenges of a global economy. The 2006 session of the Kentucky General Assembly addressed educational leadership programs in House Joint Resolution 14 (HJR 14) (attached). The resolution required the Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB) to organize an interagency task force to collaborate with colleges and universities to redesign administrator preparation programs and professional development programs, and to align doctoral programs in education with redesigned master s and other leadership programs to ensure rigor and relevance. The resolution requires a progress report to the Interim Joint Committee on Education by October 1, 2007. Five comprehensive institutions have posted or pre-posted proposals for an Ed.D. program in the Kentucky Postsecondary Program Proposal System (KPPPS). In addition, the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville have been selected to participate in a Carnegie Foundation initiative to redesign the education doctorate. They were two of 20 programs nationally selected to participate in the initiative. The University of Kentucky, the University of Louisville, and Spalding University are currently the only Kentucky institutions offering an education doctorate. Together these programs have averaged an enrollment of approximately 600 students. Over the past five years, they have produced approximately 90 graduates annually. Kentucky ranks 14 th of the 16 Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) states in production of education doctorates, and 35 th nationally. These activities provide the Council and the institutions with an opportunity to meet a real need within the context of the Council s Double the Numbers initiative. The challenges of the global economy and of meeting HB 1 goals require a coordinated and systematic
Attachment F approach to proposals to create or redesign education doctorates. Such proposals must be reviewed with a focus on Kentucky s needs and on best practices nationally. Alignment and Structure The Council has set aggressive goals for the postsecondary and adult education system to double the number of baccalaureate degree holders in the state. Meeting these goals will require considerable reallocation and new investment in programs that improve undergraduate retention and graduation rates. The structure of any new or redesigned educational leadership program should be highly collaborative and interdisciplinary. This will ensure quality, effectiveness, and efficiency. Any proposals for new or redesigned programs must be aligned with the work of the HJR 14 task force. The task force has developed a standard set of criteria for review and redesign of both the master s and doctorate in education. The criteria are designed to ensure a consistent and coordinated approach while providing an opportunity for institutions to develop individual emphases. The task force s criteria and methodology also can be supported by the Council s authority to identify academic degree programs as standardized degree programs (KRS 164.037). A survey of potential applicants to Ed.D. programs and of employers of educational leaders by the HJR 14 task force produced a modest response. The survey was based on perceptions of the Ed.D. as traditionally offered. The need to redesign Ed.D. programs must be separated from the need or demand for programs as currently structured in Kentucky. Both new and current programs must be designed or redesigned to meet today s needs. Restructuring the way in which educational leadership programs are designed and delivered may well increase demand for such programs. The primary market for the programs will be the P-12 community. Criteria and Process The Council staff has articulated five general questions that will guide review of proposals to offer new doctorates in educational leadership. Is the proposal consistent with Kentucky s Public Agenda for Postsecondary and Adult Education? Is there a need for new doctorates? Does the proposing institution have the programmatic and fiscal capacity to offer the program? Can the program be more effectively delivered by another institution? Can the program be offered in collaboration with another institution?
Attachment F EPSB s Education Leadership Redesign Task Force has developed additional criteria that will be used to review Ed.D. program proposals. These criteria provide for certain standard features applicable to all programs that will ensure effective coordination of program delivery, maximum flexibility for students in scheduling and course-taking, and efficient use of resources. 1. Program Design A. Rigorous and relevant prerequisites for admission. B. Seamless transfer options for students, allowing them to take courses from any approved program and have them count toward the degree. C. Cohort or open model of registration, including minimum requirements for viability of program. D. A detailed program of study. E. Description of culminating experience or dissertation appropriate to the needs of the constituencies served. F. Demonstration of a fully aligned relationship between the redesigned master s and doctoral programs. G. Program tracks that acknowledge the diversity of applicants background experiences and prior knowledge. H. Articulated agreements with local school districts, cooperatives, and other regional partners that ensure substantive field experience. 2. Program Content A. Be interdisciplinary and collaborative across institutions and agencies, calling on a wide variety of resources. B. Have rigorous curriculum standards, with identified competencies, and cohort-based instructional methods that motivate and engage students with a focus on dynamic instructional leadership, all with a flexible schedule to accommodate working professionals. C. Blend theoretical and research knowledge with applied analytical skills (research knowledge should be used to improve school practice). D. Focus on data-based decision making, the efficient use of technology for management and instruction, and the establishment of virtual learning communities. E. Help leaders work collaboratively and inclusively with teachers, parents, students, and the community to create productive learning environments. 3. Capacity A. Faculty 1) Appropriate qualifications of present and pending faculty, including rank, degrees, experience, and relevant scholarship. 2) Appropriate balance between full- and part-time faculty in the program, ensuring quality and consistency for the students.
Attachment F 3) Description of the support and resources that will be provided to aid in the inculcation of a doctoral education culture within the department and institution and the preparation of faculty to chair student committees. B. Resource Requirements 1) Demonstration of financial viability. a) Total costs for students, including options for student financing. b) Start-up costs. c) Financial impact on institution. d) Minimum number of students required to make program viable, accounting for attrition. 2) Evidence of sufficient graduate student support, including availability of external funding. 4. Components Specific to Joint Programs A. Agreements must be clear regarding which entities have decision-making responsibilities in which areas and how differences will be resolved. B. A set of criteria for faculty participation in the program must be jointly developed. C. Admissions decisions must be made jointly and must be unified from a student perspective. D. Advisors must be located at all institutions. E. Residency must be clearly defined and may or may not involve physical presence at one or more institutions. F. Agreement must be clear on how tuition and fees are paid and allocated. G. Curricular requirements must be established jointly. H. Dissertation or culminating experience standards and procedures must be developed jointly, including the types of research deemed acceptable. I. Committee membership must be equitable, with procedures for exceptions. J. Memorandum of agreement must be completed to guide administration of the program. The Council staff will request external consultants to assist them in the review of proposals for new and redesigned education doctorates to ensure alignment with the criteria described above. Three years after implementation of any new educational leadership program, and upon completion of the Carnegie-led redesign of current programs, the Council staff will review the program to assess the degree to which it is meeting the purposes for which it was approved. The review will take into account any changes in circumstances that might warrant modification of the original approval. If deficiencies are found, the institution(s) will be requested to remedy them or risk revocation of the authority to offer the degree.
Education Doctorates in Kentucky Attachment G Timeline August 2006 August-October 2006 November 2006 January 2007 January-February 2007 March 2007 April-May 2007 May-September 2007 June 2007 July 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 January 2008 February 2008 Education Leadership Redesign Task Force established by House Joint Resolution 14 begins meeting Work groups of the Task Force (including preparation programs, professional development, induction and working conditions, and doctoral programs) meet Work groups report to Task Force EPSB updated on progress of Task Force Work groups of the Task Force meet Work groups report to the Task Force Masters degree redesign principles clearly articulated. Universities not already engaged in the process should begin aligning new masters degrees and potential doctoral degrees Current and proposed doctoral programs are reviewed for coherence with masters degree redesign. Inherent to this review is the preference for collaborative and/or joint doctoral degrees in education leadership Task Force reports to the EPSB Council approves Ed.D. program criteria CPE begins to consider new doctoral degrees in education leadership Task Force reports to Interim Joint Committee on Education External Review Committee is created External Review Committee interviews campuses proposing programs External Review Committee recommends approval of all proposals with suggestions for improvement
Attachment H Council on Postsecondary Education Quality and Accountability Policy Group February 1, 2008 Review of Ed.D. Proposals and Programs Process Update The Council staff received complete proposals from three comprehensive universities for a doctorate in educational leadership in October 2007. The proposals are from Eastern Kentucky University, Western Kentucky University, and Northern Kentucky University. A review committee was established to evaluate these proposals in accordance with the criteria approved by the Council at its July 16, 2007, meeting. The review committee is comprised of: Elaine Farris, deputy commissioner of the Bureau of Learning Results Services, Kentucky Department of Education Phillip Rogers, executive director of the Education Professional Standards Board Dianne Bazell, assistant vice president for academic affairs, Council on Postsecondary Education Kathy O Neill, director of the Southern Regional Education Board Learning-Centered Leadership Program Harrie Buecker, superintendent of Franklin County Schools Jan Muto, assistant to the chancellor for teaching and learning, Kentucky Community and Technical College System This committee reviewed proposals and interviewed campus officials January 16, 2008, in order to make recommendations to the Council s interim president and vice president for academic affairs regarding possible ways to improve the proposals. The committee drafted a set of guiding questions for the interviews, which are attached. Dialogue with the institutions may occur in order to resolve issues of concern, after which the staff will make a recommendation to the Council regarding these programs. Staff preparation by Jim Applegate and John DeAtley